Tag: Data

Beyond the Latest Data from the National Student Clearinghouse

EducationDynamics Transforms Insights into Action for Higher Ed Leaders

The higher education landscape is in constant motion. To truly thrive, institutions committed to student success must not just keep pace but anticipate what’s next. The National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) recently released two crucial reports in June 2025—one on “some college, no credential” (SCNC) undergraduates and another on overall undergraduate student retention and persistence. These aren’t just statistics. They are the roadmap for strategic action.

At EducationDynamics, we don’t merely react to these insights. We proactively integrate them into data-driven solutions that empower our partners to excel. Our deep understanding of the higher education market, sharpened by years of proprietary research, allows us to translate these macro trends into micro-level strategies that deliver tangible results for your institution.

Strategic Implications from the NSC June Update

The latest NSC findings highlight several critical areas demanding immediate attention from higher education leaders:

Persistence and Retention Gaps

While overall persistence is at 78% and retention at 70%, a significant disparity exists. Bachelor’s and certificate-seeking students show much higher rates than those pursuing associate degrees. Generalized support isn’t enough. Tailored academic and financial aid advising, particularly for associate-degree pathways, is essential to prevent attrition at critical junctures.

The Part-Time Student Paradox

Persistence and retention rates for part-time students are a staggering 30% lower than their full-time peers. Part-time learners often juggle work and family. Institutions must design flexible and accessible support systems, including asynchronous learning, evening/weekend advising, and re-evaluating traditional program structures.

Sectoral Disparities

For-profit institutions demonstrate significantly lower retention and persistence rates compared to not-for-profit counterparts. Regardless of sector, consistent and proactive communication focused on evolving student needs is crucial. This means dedicated engagement strategies, not just reactive responses.

Equity in Outcomes

White and Asian students continue to exhibit the highest persistence and retention rates. Achieving equitable outcomes demands meticulously analyzing data by affinity group, identifying specific barriers faced by underserved populations, and then designing targeted, culturally competent support programs.

The Power of Re-Engagement

The share of re-enrollees earning a credential in their first year has increased by nearly five percent, with students who have at least two full years of credits being most likely to re-enroll and persist. Notably, 36% re-enroll at the same school. Your “stopped out” student population is a goldmine for re-enrollment. Proactive, personalized outreach, highlighting clear paths to completion, is a win-win for both institutions seeking to boost enrollment and students aiming to achieve their academic aspirations.

The Online Advantage

In almost all cases, a plurality of re-enrolling students chose primarily online schools. Even if your institution isn’t primarily online, a robust and well-promoted suite of online program options is vital. Flexibility in format and delivery is critical to meet the diverse needs of today’s learners.

Certificate Pathways as Catalysts

Nearly half of re-enrolled SCNC students who earned a credential in their first year attained an undergraduate certificate. Expanding and actively promoting undergraduate certificate programs, especially those aligning with in-demand skills or acting as stepping stones to degrees, can significantly boost completion rates among the SCNC population.

How EducationDynamics Turns Insights into Action for Our Partners

Tailored Support for the Modern Learner

We partner with institutions to develop AI-powered communication workflows and personalized engagement platforms that proactively address the specific needs of part-time, non-traditional, and diverse student populations. For instance, our work with one regional university saw a 15% increase in part-time student retention within two semesters by implementing automated check-ins and flexible advising scheduling based on our Engaging the Modern Learner report findings.

Optimizing Re-Engagement Pipelines

Our “Education Reengagement Report: Inspiring Reenrollment in Some College No Credential Students” anticipated the NSC’s findings on the SCNC population. We’ve since refined our “Lost Student Analysis” methodology, which identifies high-potential stopped-out students and crafts targeted re-enrollment campaigns. For a recent partner, this resulted in re-enrolling over 200 SCNC students in a single academic year, directly contributing to enrollment growth.

Strategic Program Portfolio Development

Understanding the demand for online and certificate options, we guide institutions in developing and promoting flexible program offerings. This includes comprehensive market research to identify in-demand certificate programs and optimizing their visibility through targeted marketing. Our expertise helps institutions strategically align their offerings with what NSC data shows students are seeking.

Equity-Driven Enrollment & Retention

We help institutions implement data segmentation and predictive analytics to identify students at risk of stopping out based on various demographic and academic factors. This enables early intervention and the allocation of resources to underserved groups, fostering a more equitable and supportive learning environment.

Proactive Market Intelligence

Our partners gain an unparalleled advantage with early access to our market research reports and bespoke analyses. These reports, often preceding or complementing national findings like the NSC’s, provide actionable recommendations that allow institutions to adapt their strategies ahead of the curve, rather than playing catch-up.

Your Partner in Data-Driven Student Success

EducationDynamics is more than a service provider. We are a strategic partner dedicated to empowering higher education leaders with the insights and tools needed to navigate an evolving landscape and maximize student success. We combine cutting-edge market intelligence with proven strategies, transforming data into actionable plans that boost retention, drive re-enrollment and foster a truly student-centric institution.

Source link

July 28, 2025
The Unignorable Data on AI in Higher Ed Marketing and Enrollment Management
Why Higher Education Leaders Can No Longer Afford to Wait on AI Adoption

Just a few years ago, AI in higher education was largely a topic for innovation labs and speculative white papers. Today, it has moved from the periphery to the absolute core of institutional viability, particularly in the critical areas of marketing and enrollment management. Leaders who still view AI as a future investment, rather than an immediate operational imperative, risk being outmaneuvered by a competitive landscape that is already embracing this transformative power.

The global AI software market is projected to hit an astounding $126 billion by the end of 2025. From healthcare to transportation AI is now an integral part of daily operations, with a significant 78% of organizations reporting AI usage in 2024—a sharp increase from 55% in 2023. Generative AI specifically saw its usage in at least one business function jump from 33% in 2023 to a staggering 71% in 2024.

The critical question is no longer if AI should be used, but how quickly institutions can integrate it to avoid not just falling behind but becoming irrelevant in a rapidly evolving landscape. The recent Marketing and Enrollment Management AI Readiness Report 2025, produced by UPCEA, the Online and Professional Education Association, and EducationDynamics, the only higher education agency building revenue and reputation that drives results, provides an in-depth look at institutional perceptions and AI readiness.

When Staff AI Adoption Outpaces Leadership

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: while your most proactive staff are already leveraging AI to drive results, many institutions are held back by analysis paralysis and strategic inaction. This is a direct threat to talent retention and competitive advantage.

While the general sentiment toward AI is increasingly positive, the report highlights that individual university staff are often far more receptive to using emerging technologies than their institutions. This leads to a significant gap between receptivity to AI in marketing and enrollment management and organization-changing operationalization of AI at an institutional level.

In 2025, 65% of survey respondents reported actively using emerging technologies like AI in their marketing and enrollment efforts, a substantial increase from 40% in 2024. However, this leaves over one-third of higher education marketing and enrollment management professionals on the outside of the AI revolution, falling further behind by the day. More troubling, only 61% indicated their institution is open to using these technologies. While the evidence suggests a growing openness to adopting critical technology, only 56 percent of institutions have a plan for upskilling staff in AI-driven tools.

Many respondents recognize a gap in their institutional AI readiness. A striking 56% of respondents don’t consider their institution a leader in implementing AI for marketing and enrollment management functions. When compared to peer institutions, 38% felt they were on pace, but 36% believed they were behind, with only 21% considering themselves ahead. This sentiment underscores a growing urgency to adopt AI, coupled with a pervasive feeling of being “behind the curve.”

AI is the Invisible Engine Driving Higher Ed

AI is a core component embedded directly in the recruitment, engagement and conversion platforms institutions already rely on. This widespread integration is transforming daily operations, as the 2025 survey highlights:
- Nearly two-thirds (65%) of institutions utilize AI-enhanced creative and design tools.
- Over half (51%) use social media management tools with embedded AI.
- Customer relationship management (CRM) systems and data analytics platforms with AI features are used by 31% of institutions respectively.
The perceived effectiveness of these AI-powered tools is on the rise. Content generation, the most widely used AI application, was rated most effective, with 47% deeming it “very effective” or “effective.” Other applications like content optimization (41% effective) and customized ad and message delivery (39% effective) also showed strong results.

Moving beyond perceived effectiveness, AI integration is yielding direct, quantifiable improvements across marketing and enrollment operations:
- 69% of respondents reported improved efficiency in their workflows due to AI.
- More than half (52%) observed an increase in the quality of their work.
- Nearly half (48%) believe AI tool integration has positively impacted their enrollment funnel.
The study identified key areas where AI is delivering the strongest return on investment (ROI) including customized ad messaging, lead generation and creative content development. Content optimization also stood out, with 36% of respondents noting a “very high” or “high” ROI. If nearly 70% see efficiency gains and almost half see a positive impact on enrollment, why aren’t more institutions fully embracing this?

The Future is AI-Expected

Modern Learners Are Already There

Student engagement is AI-dependent. For Modern Learners artificial intelligence is a fundamental tool in their college search, essential for information discovery. This profound shift in how the next generation interacts with information demands institutions meet this baseline expectation. Otherwise, they risk being perceived as outdated, irrelevant or having their reputation pre-determined by AI itself.
Modern Learners are using AI to seek information on:

Tuition fees (57%)

Course offerings (51%)

Admission requirements (43%)

Campus facilities (37%)

Student reviews (35%)
This highlights the imperative for institutions to ensure their AI-accessible content, whether via chatbots or search optimization, directly aligns with what students are actively seeking.

What Leaders Are Envisioning

Looking ahead, institutional leaders envision even greater potential for AI-driven tools. Within the next two years, innovations such as:

…are expected to have a significant transformative impact on higher education marketing and enrollment management. These tools promise to address persistent challenges like the need for personalized outreach, improved insights into student behaviors and increased efficiency with limited resources.

The Barriers to AI Integration Progress

Despite the growing enthusiasm and proven benefits, institutions continue to face significant barriers to full AI integration. The top challenges cited by respondents include:
- Budget constraints (76%)
- Technical infrastructure readiness (64%)
- Data privacy and security concerns (52%)
- Staff readiness (50%)
Notably, these barriers have become even more pronounced since 2024, underscoring the urgent need for strategic investment and institutional alignment. Alarmingly, 44% of respondents reported their institution lacks a plan to upskill or support staff in adopting AI-driven technologies. This is a leadership failure, not a staff deficiency. Your most valuable asset, your people, are signaling a readiness for growth, yet nearly half of institutions are failing to provide the essential support.

The Only Action Plan You Need for AI Acceleration

The findings from the UPCEA and EducationDynamics study present clear implications for higher education leaders. The time for passive observation is over. Decisive action is required.
- Invest Where Impact Is Proven
  Focus resources on AI applications already delivering proven ROI, starting with content creation, personalized ads and lead generation. Maximize every dollar in a constrained environment and accelerate returns and free up capacity for further innovation by allocating strategically.
- Upskill Teams
  Invest in targeted training for both technical skills and change management is crucial to empower staff to effectively use AI tools and build confidence. Providing clear growth pathways tied to AI fluency can significantly improve staff engagement and retention, especially given that 34% of staff now report that their institution’s stance on AI impacts their likelihood of staying at that institution—a dramatic jump from just 1% in 2024. Furthermore, 90% of respondents view AI as a useful tool for their own professional growth. Failing to invest in AI fluency for your teams is effectively disarming them in a rapidly escalating competitive battle.
- Align Leadership with Operational Readiness
  The nearly doubling of “lack of alignment with strategic priorities” as a major barrier (from 18% in 2024 to 33% in 2025) is an indictment of existing leadership structures. Institutional leaders must move beyond passive support and commit to actionable strategies for AI integration at an institutional level. This involves benchmarking adoption progress, embedding AI into strategic plans and allocating necessary resources to scale effective tools.
- Establish Institutional AI Governance
  Without robust governance, AI adoption will be chaotic, risky and unsustainable. Creating governance structures that include marketing, enrollment, IT and data privacy leaders is essential. These groups should collaborate to develop responsible AI use policies, establish ethical guidelines and transparently communicate data privacy practices to prospective students. Only 49% of institutions currently have measures in place for ensuring student data security and privacy when using AI tools, though this is an improvement from 30% in 2024. Protect your institution’s reputation, ensuring ethical practice and safeguarding student data in an increasingly scrutinized environment.
A Bet Your Institution Can’t Afford

The 2025 study is a revelation of present realities. AI is the operational backbone of competitive higher education marketing and enrollment management. Institutions that have adopted AI are reporting measurable gains in effectiveness efficiency and ROI. The report unequivocally reinforces that delaying implementation means facing the significant risk of falling permanently behind, not only compared to AI-embracing peers but also in meeting the evolving expectations of students and staff.

For higher education, the challenge now lies in converting receptivity into decisive action, and scattered AI adoption into a cohesive institutional strategy. EducationDynamics provides the expertise, data-driven strategies and solutions to help institutions navigate the complexities of AI integration, meet the expectations of Modern Learners and secure a competitive edge in marketing and enrollment management. The future of higher education is AI-expected, and with EducationDynamics, your institution can lead the charge.
Source link
July 21, 2025
Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025

This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Maggie Smart, UCAS Director of Data and Analysis

As we pass the 30 June deadline for this year’s undergraduate admissions cycle, UCAS’ data offers an early view of applicant and provider behaviour as we head into Confirmation and Clearing. It also marks a personal milestone for me, as it’s my first deadline release since rejoining UCAS. I wanted to take a deeper look at the data to reflect on how much things have changed since I worked here 10 years ago.

Applicant demand has always been shaped by two key elements: the size of the potential applicant pool, and their propensity to apply. Since I last worked at UCAS in 2016, these two factors have continuously interchanged over the better part of the past decade – sometimes increasing or decreasing independently but often counterbalancing each other. Let’s take a look at how things are shaping up this year.

Overall, by the 30 June there have been 665,070 applicants (all ages, all domiciles) this year, compared to 656,760 (+1.3%) in 2024. This is an increase in applicants of over 64,000 since UCAS last reported in January, although the profile of these additional applicants is very different. At the January Equal Consideration Deadline (ECD), over half of the total number of applicants were UK 18-year olds, who are the most likely group to have applied by that stage in the cycle. They represent just 8% of the additional applicants since January, among a much larger proportion of UK mature and international students.

As we saw at January, the differences in demand for places between young people from the most advantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 5) and most disadvantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 1) areas at June remain broadly the same as last year – with the most advantaged 2.15 times more likely to apply to HE than those from the least advantaged backgrounds, compared to 2.17 last year.

UK 18-year-old demand

Demand for UK higher education (HE) has long been shaped by the 18-year-old population – the largest pool of applicants. Despite the well-known challenges facing the HE sector at present, at the 30 June deadline we see record numbers of UK 18-year-old applicants, with 328,390 applicants this year – up from 321,410 (+2%) in 2024. This trend was almost entirely locked in by the January deadline, given the vast majority of UK 18-year-old applicants have applied at this stage in the cycle.

During my previous tenure at UCAS, the size of the UK 18-year-old population had been falling year on year but from 2020, it began to increase. This continued growth drives the increase in UK 18-year-old applicant numbers we have observed in recent cycles. But when we look at their overall application rate to understand the strength of demand among this group, the data shows a marginal decline again this year – down to 41.2% from 41.9% in 2024. The historically strong growth in the propensity of UK 18-year-olds to apply for HE, which we’ve observed across the last decade, has clearly plateaued.

This could be due to a range of factors, such as young people choosing to take up work or an apprenticeship, or financial barriers. We know that cost of living is increasingly influencing young people’s decisions this year, with pre-applicants telling us that financial support – such as scholarships or bursaries – ranks as the second most important consideration for them (46%), followed closely by universities’ specific cost-of-living support (34%).

Interesting to note is the number of UK 19-year-old applicants. When separating the data to distinguish 19-year-olds applying for the first time (as opposed to those reapplying), there has been a decent increase – from 46,680 last year to 48,890 this year (+4.7%). For many years, the number of first-time UK 19-year-old applicants had been falling year on year, but since 2023 this trend has started to reverse. This suggests that demand among young people may be holding up as they decide to take a year out before applying to university or college.

Mature students

For UK mature students (aged 21+), the picture looks very different. The number of mature students applying to university or college ebbs and flows depending on the strength of the job market, so since I was last at UCAS, we have typically seen applications decrease when employment opportunities are strong and vice versa. Alongside fluctuations linked to the employment market, rising participation at age 18 means there is a smaller pool of potential older applicants who have not already entered HE. The falling demand from mature students continues in 2025, although in recent years there have been small but significant increases in the volume of mature applicants applying after the 30 June deadline and directly into Clearing.

As of this year’s 30 June deadline there have been 86,310 UK mature (21+) applicants, compared to 89,690 (-3.8%) in 2024, meaning a fall in demand compared to the previous year at this point in the cycle for the fourth year in a row. However, whereas at the January deadline mature applicants were down 6.4% compared to the same point last year, at June the figure is only 3.8% down showing some recovery in the numbers. This is another indication that mature students are applying later in the cycle. While it remains too early to say whether we will see continued growth in mature direct to Clearing applicants in 2025, last year 9,390 UK mature students who applied direct to Clearing were accepted at university or college, an increase of 7.4% on 2023 and 22.7% higher than 2022.

International students

When looking at the UCAS data through the lens of international students, the landscape has changed significantly since 2016. Brexit led to a sharp decline in EU applicants, offset by strong growth elsewhere, the pandemic caused disruption to international student mobility, and we’ve seen intensified global competition, shifting market dynamics and geopolitics which are increasingly influencing where they choose to study. This year we’re seeing growth once more, with 138,460 international applicants compared to 135,460 in 2024 (+2.2%) – although this stood at +2.7% at January. It should be noted that UCAS does only see a partial view of undergraduate international admissions (we tend to get a more complete picture by the end of the cycle) and we don’t capture data on postgraduate taught and research pathways.

Interest among Chinese students in UK education has held firm since my time at UCAS, and this year we’re seeing a record number of applicants from China – 33,870, up from 30,860 (+10%) in 2024. This year’s data also shows increases in applicants from Ireland (6,060 applicants, +15%), Nigeria (3,170 applicants, +23%) and the USA (7,930 applicants, +14%).

Offer-making

We are releasing a separate report on offer-making this year, alongside the usual data dashboard for applications. This additional data covers offers and offer rates over the past three years, from the perspective of applicants according to their age and where they live, and from the perspective of providers by UK nation and tariff group.

What we’re seeing as the natural consequence of increased applications this year is an uplift in offers. Universities have made more offers than ever before this year, with 2.0 million main scheme offers to January deadline applicants overall, largely driven by the rise in UK 18-year-olds applicants (who are the most likely to use their full five choices while applying). This record high surpasses the previous peak of 1.9 million offers set last year (+3.8%).

While the main scheme offer rate has increased across all provider tariff groups, the most notable uplift is for higher tariff providers – up 3.2 percentage points to 64.4% this year. Despite the increase in offer rates, higher tariffs do still remain the lowest, partly due to being the most selective institutions. Offer rates by medium and lower tariff providers have also increased, by 0.9 percentage points to 77.0% among medium tariff providers, and by 1.5 percentage points to 81.7% among lower tariff providers. This means that, among those who applied by the Equal Consideration Deadline in January, 72.5% of main scheme applications received an offer this year, also a record high, and 1.8 percentage points higher than in 2024.

It’s worth noting that we’ll be updating our provider tariff groupings in time for the 2026 cycle, to reflect changes in the higher education landscape.

Looking ahead

For students who are intent on going to university or college, it makes this a very good year, with more opportunities than ever before. A record 94.5% of students who applied by the January deadline will be approaching the critical summer period having received at least one offer. High levels of offer-making by universities and colleges typically translates into more acceptances, which should give applicants plenty of confidence heading into results day.

I’m delighted to be back at UCAS, and my team will continue to dig further into the data as Confirmation and Clearing draws nearer to see how demand translates into accepted places come results day.

UCAS

UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, is an independent charity, and the UK’s shared admissions service for higher education.

UCAS’ services support young people making post-18 choices, as well as mature learners, by providing information, advice, and guidance to inspire and facilitate educational progression to university, college, or an apprenticeship.

UCAS manages almost three million applications, from around 700,000 people each year, for full-time undergraduate courses at over 380 universities and colleges across the UK.

UCAS is committed to delivering a first-class service to all our beneficiaries — they’re at the heart of everything we do.

Source link

July 16, 2025
Europe Must Do More to Protect Data Under Trump

Europe “needs to do more” to protect scientific data threatened by the Trump administration, the president of the European Research Council has said.

Speaking at the Metascience 2025 conference in London, Maria Leptin said such data is in a “very precarious” position. Since Donald Trump began his second term as U.S. president, researchers have raced to archive or preserve access to U.S.-hosted data sets and other resources at risk of being taken down as the administration targets research areas including public health, climate and fields considered to be related to diversity.

“We’ve heard the situation from the U.S. where some data are disappearing, where databases are being stopped, and this is really a wake-up call that we as a community need to do more about this and Europe needs to do more about it,” Leptin said.

The ERC president highlighted the Global Biodata Coalition, which aims to “safeguard the world’s open life science, biological and biomedical reference data in perpetuity,” noting that the European Commission recently published a call to support the initiative.

“Medical research critically depends on the maintenance and the availability of core data resources, and that is currently at risk. Some of these resources may disappear,” she said. “I really encourage all policymakers and funders to join the coalition.”

“Right now is the worst time to not have access to data in view of the power of AI and the advances in computing, large language models, et cetera,” Leptin told the conference, noting that the Trump administration is not the only threat to accessible data. “The value of the data that are held across Europe is unfortunately massively reduced because of fragmentation, siloing, and uneven access.”

A recent ERC workshop involving researchers, policymakers, industry representatives and start-ups raised some “shocking” concerns about health data, she added. “Even in the same town where researchers wanted to access the huge numbers of data that the hospitals in that town had, it was impossible because the hospitals couldn’t even share data with each other, because they used totally different data formats.”

Boosting access to data will require “a huge effort,” Leptin acknowledged. “We of course need technical, legal and financial frameworks that make this possible and practical, [as well as] interoperable formats and common standards.”

While not a data infrastructure in itself, the ERC “has a role to play” in improving accessibility, she said. “What we try to do is to set expectations around good data practices.”

“We do need European-level solutions,” Leptin stressed. “The scientific questions we face, whether in climate or health or technology or [other fields], don’t stop at national borders—in fact, they are global.”

Source link

July 10, 2025
The Digital Twin: How to Connect and Enable Your Student Data for Outreach, Personalization, and Predictive Insights [Webinar]
You’re sitting on mountains of student data scattered across CRMs, SIS, LMS, and advising tools. Systems don’t talk. Dashboards are disconnected. And AI? Not even close. Without connection, context, or clarity, that data is nothing more than a headache and a barrier to impact.

The Digital Twin: How to Connect and Enable Your Student Data for Outreach, Personalization, and Predictive Insights

Thursday, July 24

2:00 pm ET / 1:00 pm CT

In this webinar, Bryan Chitwood, Director of Data Enablement, breaks down how you can start building your students’ Digital Twin and turn your fragmented data into real-time, actionable intelligence. We’ll show you how unified student data profiles fuel more innovative outreach, personalized engagement, and predictive insights across the student lifecycle.

You’ll walk away knowing:

How to connect siloed data sources into a unified, reliable student profile

What a Digital Twin is and how it differs from your CRM or SIS data

Use-cases for personalization, predictive engagement, and lifecycle outreach

Real examples of how institutions are putting Digital Twins to work right now

If your campus is drowning in data but starving for strategy, this is the conversation you need.

Who Should Attend:

If you are a data-minded decision-maker in higher ed or a cabinet-level leader being asked to do more with less, this webinar is for you.

Presidents and Provosts

VPs of Enrollment, Marketing, and Student Success

Leaders charged with driving digital transformation and data-enabled decision making

Meet Your Presenter

Bryan Chitwood

Director of Data Enablement, Collegis Education

Complete the form on the right to reserve your spot! We look forward to seeing you on Thursday, July 24.
Collegis is passionate about education and driven by the technology that keeps institutions moving forward.

Source link
July 8, 2025
IPEDS Data Collection Schedule (US Department of Education)

The IPEDS data collection calendar for 2025-26 has now been posted and is available within the Data Collection System’s (DCS) Help menu, and on the DCS login page at: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/public/data-collection-schedule

What is IPEDS?

IPEDS is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. It is a system of interrelated surveys conducted annually by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). IPEDS gathers information from every college, university, and technical and vocational institution that participates in the federal student financial aid programs. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, requires that institutions that participate in federal student aid programs report data on enrollments, program completions, graduation rates, faculty and staff, finances, institutional prices, and student financial aid. These data are made available to students and parents through the College Navigator college search Web site and to researchers and others through the IPEDS Data Center. To learn more about IPEDS Survey components, visit https://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/use-the-data/survey-components.

How is IPEDS Used?

IPEDS provides basic data needed to describe — and analyze trends in — postsecondary education in the United States, in terms of the numbers of students enrolled, staff employed, dollars expended, and degrees earned. Congress, federal agencies, state governments, education providers, professional associations, private businesses, media, students and parents, and others rely on IPEDS data for this basic information on postsecondary institutions.

IPEDS forms the institutional sampling frame for other NCES postsecondary surveys, such as the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

Which Institutions Report to IPEDS?

The completion of all IPEDS surveys is mandatory for institutions that participate in or are applicants for participation in any federal student financial aid program (such as Pell grants and federal student loans) authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 USC 1094, Section 487(a)(17) and 34 CFR 668.14(b)(19)).

Institutions that complete IPEDS surveys each year include research universities, state colleges and universities, private religious and liberal arts colleges, for-profit institutions, community and technical colleges, non-degree-granting institutions such as beauty colleges, and others.

To find out if a particular institution reports to IPEDS, go to College Navigator and search by the institution name.

What Data are Collected in IPEDS?

IPEDS collects data on postsecondary education in the United States in eight areas: institutional characteristics; institutional prices; admissions; enrollment; student financial aid; degrees and certificates conferred; student persistence and success; and institutional resources including human, resources, finance, and academic libraries.

Source link

July 8, 2025
Using QILT data to up student satisfaction – Campus Review

Students need to know universities are actively using Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) survey data to change processes, the director of the survey said on Thursday.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

July 7, 2025
Helping professional services get confident with data

“I don’t do data.”

It’s a phrase heard all too often across professional services in UK higher education.

Despite the sector’s growing reliance on data to inform strategic decisions, evaluate performance, and improve services, a significant skills gap remains—particularly among non-specialist staff.

Critical skills

Universities increasingly regard data as a critical asset. But while institutional expectations are rising, many professional services teams feel underprepared to meet what is now expected of them. The ability to interpret, contextualise, and communicate insights from data is now an essential part of most roles. And yet, for many professionals, data remains confusing, intimidating, or simply outside their perceived remit.

This gap isn’t just about technical skills—it’s about confidence, culture, and collaboration. Professional services staff are often expected to make sense of complex datasets without the training or tools to do so effectively. Everyone is expected to engage with data daily, but few are properly equipped to do so. The result? Missed opportunities, reliance on specialist teams, and a growing divide between “data people” and everyone else.

That divide threatens more than just productivity. In an era of AI and self-service analytics, the risk is that subject matter expertise gets lost or overridden by automated insights or misunderstood metrics. True value comes not just from accessing data, but from interpreting it through a lens of organisational understanding and professional experience. So how can we bridge the gap between those who do and those who don’t do data?

The options

Often the answer seems to be recruiting external data specialists – usually at considerable expense. While this brings in the needed expertise it also creates silos rather than building capability across teams. This approach not only strains budgets—with specialist salaries commanding premium rates in today’s competitive market—but also creates dependency on individuals who may lack contextual understanding of higher education. There is also a problem of longevity. When these specialists eventually leave, they take their knowledge with them, leaving institutions vulnerable.

By contrast, institutions that invest in developing data confidence across existing staff leverage their team’s deep sector knowledge while creating more sustainable, resilient capabilities. The return on investment becomes clear: upskilling current staff who understand institutional nuances creates more value than repeatedly recruiting external experts who require months to grasp the complexities of university operations.

Meanwhile, higher education faces an ever-expanding regulatory and statutory data burden. From HESA returns and TEF submissions to access and participation plans and REF preparations, the volume and complexity of mandatory reporting continues to grow. Each new requirement brings not just additional work but increased scrutiny and consequences for inaccuracy or misinterpretation. This regulatory landscape demands that universities distribute data capabilities widely rather than concentrating them in specialist teams who come close to breaking point during reporting seasons.

When professional services staff across the institution can confidently engage with data, universities can respond more nimbly to regulatory changes, identify compliance risks earlier, and transform what might otherwise be box-ticking exercises into meaningful insights that drive institutional improvement.

Data confident

Recognising this challenge, UHR and Strive Higher have developed the Developing Confident Data Partners programme—a practical, supportive course designed specifically for HR and People professionals in higher education. Drawing on insights from UHR’s 6,000+ members, the programme addresses the real barriers to data confidence and equips participants with the skills and language to contribute meaningfully to data-informed conversations.

By bridging the gap between subject matter expertise and data literacy, this initiative empowers professionals to engage more fully with the data-driven culture of their institutions. As one participant put it:

The programme boosted my confidence and has taken away some of the mystery that some pure data experts can often create. I know what to do now before I ask for data, and what to say when I do want some.

In a sector where informed decision-making is critical, the data skills gap in professional services can no longer be ignored. The Confident Data Partners programme is one step toward a more inclusive, capable, and collaborative data culture across UK higher education.

The journey is just beginning. The opportunities in a data-driven world are endless, but success hinges on individuals understanding how to use data to inform strategy, planning and continuous improvement, and being able to communicate and collaborate with their peers.

This initiative has been a learning experience for us both. It’s shown how, when data aligns with real-world needs, the results are transformative. Because when data meets purpose – that’s where the magic happens.

Source link

July 3, 2025
Columbia University Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Inflated Rankings Data for $9 Million

Columbia University has reached a $9 million settlement agreement with undergraduate students who alleged the institution deliberately submitted false information to U.S. News & World Report to artificially boost its college rankings position.

The preliminary settlement, filed last Monday in Manhattan federal court and pending judicial approval, resolves claims that Columbia misrepresented key data points to enhance its standing in the influential annual rankings. The university reached as high as No. 2 in the undergraduate rankings in 2022 before the alleged misconduct came to light.

Students alleged that Columbia consistently provided inaccurate data to U.S. News, including the false claim that 83% of its classes contained fewer than 20 students. The lawsuit argued these misrepresentations were designed to improve the university’s ranking position and, consequently, attract more students willing to pay premium tuition rates.

The settlement covers approximately 22,000 undergraduate students who attended Columbia College, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the School of General Studies between fall 2016 and spring 2022.

The controversy began in July 2022 when Columbia mathematics professor Dr. Michael Thaddeus published a detailed analysis questioning the accuracy of data underlying the university’s No. 2 ranking. His report alleged that much of the information Columbia provided to U.S. News was either inaccurate or misleading.

Following the publication of Thaddeus’s findings, Columbia’s ranking plummeted to No. 18 in September 2022. The dramatic drop highlighted the significant impact that data accuracy has on institutional rankings and reputation.

In response to the allegations, Columbia announced in June 2023 that its undergraduate programs would withdraw from participating in U.S. News rankings altogether. The university cited concerns about the “outsized influence” these rankings have on prospective students’ decision-making processes.

“Much is lost when we attempt to distill the quality and nuance of an education from a series of data points,” Columbia stated in explaining its decision to withdraw from the rankings process.

While denying wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, Columbia acknowledged past deficiencies in its reporting practices. The university stated it “deeply regrets deficiencies in prior reporting” and has implemented new measures to ensure data accuracy.

Columbia now provides prospective students with information that has been reviewed by an independent advisory firm, demonstrating the institution’s commitment to transparency and accurate representation of its educational offerings.

Columbia’s decision to withdraw from U.S. News rankings reflects a growing skepticism among elite institutions about the value and impact of college ranking systems. Harvard and Yale have also stopped submitting data to U.S. News for various programs, signaling a potential shift in how prestigious universities approach rankings participation.

Under the terms of the agreement, student attorneys plan to seek up to one-third of the settlement amount for legal fees, which would leave approximately $6 million available for distribution among affected students. The settlement requires approval from a federal judge before taking effect.

Student lawyers characterized the accord as “fair, reasonable and adequate” given the circumstances of the case and the challenges inherent in proving damages from ranking manipulation.

Source link

July 2, 2025
Do states have ‘statutory right’ to Education Department data and guidance?

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

States suing the U.S. Department of Education over its mass layoffs claim the reduction in force is impacting the agency’s legally required functions, including research and grant distribution. But in documents submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, the Education Department said states “have no statutory right to any particular level of government data or guidance.”

The department is pushing the high court to let its massive RIF go through after being paused by both a federal district judge and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In court documents, the agency said “it can carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared-down staff and that many discretionary functions are better left to the States.”

Its request to carry through on the RIFs comes even as the agency notified “all impacted employees” on administrative leave in a June 6 email obtained by K-12 Dive that it is “actively assessing how to reintegrate you back to the office in the most seamless way possible” to comply with the court orders.

On June 16 — the same day as the agency’s latest Supreme Court filing — it also emailed RIFed staff for information to help the department in “understanding potential reentry timelines and identifying any accommodations that may be needed.”

However, several of the more than 1,300 department employees put on administrative leave in March told K-12 Dive last week that they do not think the agency intends to actually bring them back. This is despite many of the employees having worked on legally required tasks the department has lagged on or trimmed down since the layoffs, as well as the department’s efforts to seemingly comply with the court orders.

“While they’re saying we’re coming back, they’re also still appealing the [RIF] process,” said one Education Department employee who is on administrative leave because of the RIF. “It feels like they’re slow-walking it.”

Employees ‘in limbo’ as department lags on statutory tasks

The department is still paying all these employees’ salaries — amounting to millions of dollars — only for them to sit tight.

According to an email from American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, the union representing a majority of the laid-off employees, the Education Department is spending at least $7 million in taxpayer dollars per month to workers on leave.

That amount is, in fact, only for 833 of the 962 laid-off Education Department workers that the union represents and whom it was able to reach for its analysis. Thus, much more than $7 million is actually being spent per month to keep the more than 1,300 laid-off employees on payroll.

Since March, the department has spent approximately $21.5 million on just those 833 employees, according to data provided by AFGE Local 252.

While the Education Department emailed laid-off employees multiple times in the past month to gather information for “reintegration and space planning efforts” on government IDs, retirement plans and devices, among other things, several employees called this a superficial effort to comply with court orders.

In the meantime, employees are free to apply to other jobs, start their own organizations, and go on vacation if they so choose, according to employees K-12 Dive spoke with as well as an AFGE Local 252 spokesperson.

“We feel like we’re in limbo,” said an employee who has been on administrative leave since March. “They haven’t talked to us.”

This employee and the others who spoke to K-12 Dive asked to remain anonymous for fear that identification could negatively affect their employment status or severance terms.

Condition of Education report falls behind

This employee would have been working at the National Center for Education Statistics on data related to the Condition of Education Report, which is required by law — and for which the department missed its June 1 deadline “for the first time ever,” according to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

After leaving just a handful of employees in NCES, the department has so far released only a webpage titled “Learn About the New Condition of Education 2025: Part I,” which includes significantly less information than in previous years.

“Now all we have is a bare-bones ‘highlight’ document with no explanation to Congress or to the public,” Murray said in a June 5 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. “And that is really unacceptable — students, families, teachers all deserve to see a full report.”

In 2024, the report was a 44-page document including new analysis, comparisons with past years, and graphs to visualize the data. It included over 20 indicators grouped by topics from pre-kindergarten through secondary and postsecondary education, labor force outcomes and international comparisons. Individual indicators ranged from school safety issues like active shooter incidents to recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.

This year, the department said it would be “updating indicators on a rolling basis” due to its “emphasis on timeliness” and would determine “which indicators matter the most.” More than two weeks after its missed June 1 deadline, however, the report still only includes a highlights page with five indicators linking to data tables, many of which had already been released.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also expressed concerns that the department lagged on its statutory responsibilities to disburse key federal funds, including for Title I-A — which they said took three times as long to distribute than under the last administration. The delay in funding distribution gave states and districts less time to plan for helping underserved students, including those experiencing homelessness, lawmakers said.

The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to K-12 Dive’s requests for comment on its missed June 1 deadline for the report or on how it will increase government efficiency and cut costs while spending millions on salaries for employees who are not working.

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., questions McMahon during a hearing about the proposed 15% cut to the Education Department’s budget on Capitol Hill June 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The budget was consistent with President Trump’s executive order to wind down the Education Department.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images via Getty Images

Department says RIF impacts are “speculative”

However, in its Supreme Court filing on Monday, the department dismissed as “speculative allegations” states’ complaints of disruptions to services as a result of the RIFs.

The states, in their filing last week seeking to block the RIFs, said that “collection of accurate and reliable data is necessary for numerous statutory functions within the Department that greatly affect the States.”

The department relies on this data “to allocate billions of dollars in educational funds among the States under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” the states said in their June 13 response to the administration’s plea to the Supreme Court to let its RIFs take effect. The department has given “no explanation of how such allocation can occur without the collection and analysis of underlying data, or of how the data can be collected or analyzed without staff,” their filing said.

In its Monday response, the department maintained that it is not required by law to maintain “a particular quality of audit.” The states arguing to maintain the department’s previous staffing levels are trying to “micromanage government staffing based on speculation that the putative quality of statutorily mandated services will decline,” the agency said.

However, when pressed by Sen. Murray in a budget hearing earlier this month, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said “no” analysis was conducted about how the firings would impact the agency’s functions or how it would continue its statutorily required responsibilities without much of its staff. The department did read “training manuals and things of that nature” prior to the layoffs, she said, and had conversations with “the department.”

But several laid-off staffers told K-12 Dive that they were never spoken to about how their responsibilities would continue to be fulfilled after their departure.

“They don’t understand what they’ve cut,” an employee said.

Source link

June 20, 2025